• by Wendy Davis , October 2, 2025

Tech industry groups are urging a federal appellate court to reverse a ruling that the artificial intelligence company Ross Intelligence infringed copyright by training its legal research service on material published by the competing service Westlaw, owned by Thomson Reuters.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed this week, the tech organizations Computer & Communications Industry Association, NetChoice and Chamber of Progress say Ross Intelligence's use of Westlaw "headnotes" -- which are summaries of key points in legal opinions -- was protected by fair use principles.

The groups argue that Ross's use of the material was transformative, which is a key factor courts consider when evaluating fair use. They specifically say Ross's use of the headnotes for training purposes was "part of what enabled it to create its own new natural language legal search engine."

"Ross’s use of the headnotes ... was transformative, because its use of the headnotes imbued them with new meaning and purpose," the organizations write.

The filing comes in a battle that began in 2020, when Thomson Reuters claimed in a complaint brought in federal court in Delaware that Ross wrongly trained its platform on Westlaw headnotes. Thomson Reuters alleged that Ross “surreptitiously” obtained Westlaw's headnotes from a licensee, and then used them “to rush out a competing product without having to spend the resources, creative energy, and time to create it itself.”

Ross argued that it should prevail for numerous reasons, including that it made fair use of the material.

In February of this year, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Stephanos Bibas rejected Ross's argument, essentially holding that it wasn't protected by fair use principles because it used Westlaw's headnotes for the same purpose as Thomson Reuters, and intended to develop a product that would substitute for Westlaw's in the market.

Ross is now appealing that ruling to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. The tech groups aren't the only ones backing Ross's appeal. Digital rights watchdogs are also urging the 3rd Circuit to rule that Ross didn't infringe copyright.

"Prohibiting the use of paraphrased judicial holdings to build a new legal research tool is inconsistent with the central aim of copyright: promoting the creation of useful works for the public’s benefit," the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, American Library Association and others write in a separate friend-of-the-court brief filed this week.

Thomson Reuters is expected to respond to the arguments later this month.